Yet when you read the 511 page report (OK, when you skim-read it), you find Turner has already gone a very long way to satisfy the hippies.

To start with, he accepts the doomsday global warming scenario itself. Clearly he had to, because otherwise he wouldn't have been given the job. But with Surrey having just experienced its first October snow in living memory, another Arctic blast on the way, early snow in the Alps, and the increasing evidence that global warming may have stopped, there are at the very least, serious doubts over the supposed timetabling of doomsday. Plus of course, the doom only actually exists in models, and as we all surely understand, models are never more than schmodels - especially when they have 50-200 year horizons.

Second, he accepts the traditional lefty argument in favour of unilateralism. Just like the old CND argument on nuclear weapons, we're supposed to believe that if we give up our power stations, cars, and foreign holidays, then a dangerous communist superstate will be so impressed by our moral authority, it will follow suit.

Third, he accepts a huge dose of hippy thinking on the feasibility of eco-friendly energy. For example, everything we've read suggests there are serious drawbacks with windpower, including the need for massively expensive back-up systems. And making our future use of coal-fired power stations conditional on somehow cracking the unfathomable practicalities of carbon capture and storage by 2020 is fantastically heroic/ludicrous.

Finally, there's the issue of cost. According to Turner, we could achieve his recommended 21% cut in emissions by 2020 at a cost of less than 1% in annual GDP. But that is highly uncertain, depending not just on technical feasibility, but also more mundane issues such as the capacity of the wind turbine industry to step up production and installation. In fact, when you wade into the report's small print, you soon find other estimates suggesting costs could easily be double Turner's figure.

And just for future reference, here is the report's comparison of current and assumed future electricity generating costs for different technologies:

As we can see, the much puffed wind power option is up to five times the cost of coal fired generation. Which puts Turner's assertion that under his proposals electricity bills would only rise by 25% into their proper context.

But the Turner report does at least point towards rationality, as opposed to literally a new dark age. Because Turner is talking the language of cost-benefit, rather than the absolutist drivel spouted by Monbiot.

In truth, nobody has the faintest idea what's happening to the climate. Sure, it's changing, but then, it always has been. And sure, burning fossil fuel sounds like it might be A Really Really Bad Idea, but then again, sailing off the edge of the known world once sounded similarly ill-advised. We just don't know enough to tell what's happening, and as far as I'm concerned, sacrificing our way of life on that basis is simply not a runner.

The sensible way of thinking about this is surely as an insurance policy. We don't actually know what's going to happen, but if the worst came to the worst, it would be a catastrophe. So how much are we prepared to pay to insure against a possible catastrophe?

Now if the cost genuinely was only 1% of GDP, then - rather to my own surprise - I for one might be prepared to pay it. I could compare it to the cost of home insurance, which currently costs the average household around 1-2 per cent of annual income.

But given all the uncertainties, and his own cost analyses, I'm not at all convinced we could deliver anything like Turner's huge emissions cuts for a mere 1%. In fact, just as with any sales pitch, the strong suspicion is that the costs have been massaged down so as to sucker us in.

I'd much rather turn it round the other way. Instead of starting from an entirely arbitary emissions cuts target and asking someone to work out how to deliver it, I'd like to know how much insurance cover we could get for say 1% of GDP. What could that buy us? What's the best bang for the buck?

With our economy crumbling, and the public finances destroyed, the last thing we need right now is to write yet another blank cheque. It would be nice if the BBC could temporarily pause its eco-propaganda campaign and bring us some real discussion on the cost of insurance.

*Footnote - Roger Harrabin's BBC report on the Turner Report has an alarming picture of planet destroying smoke billowing from one of Britain's disgraceful coal-fired power stations. If only we could be more like the green wind-powered Germans. Except... well, blow me down... the pic actually shows the Frimmersdorf power station in... er, Germany.

BOM the book now available

Drawing on six years of blogging government waste, this book shows how we spend far more than we need on our public services. It sets out the facts and explores the underlying issues. Just why does government spend so much and deliver such second rate service? Why do we put up with it? And what are the alternatives?

ABOUT BOM

Despite all the talk of cuts, government still consumes nearly half our national income. Yet many tens of billions of its spending is wasted, with taxpayers made to pick up the tab for a depressing array of overpriced sub-standard services. This is money we can no longer afford, and our National Debt is already at danger level.

If we're to avoid further decades of stagnation and austerity we urgently need to find another way. Exposing and understanding the wastefulness of government is a necessary step in the right direction.